HN Explorer

Trump and Cesar – The Roots of Populsim

4 points by anon4984 ↗ HN
The hallmark of populism is "bread and circuses". In case of Cesar both were literal - free allotments of grain coupled with games. Trump's "bread" was the trade barriers and the resultant highest employment level (and growing wages) in decades, plus medication prescription prices, plus probably a few other things like the unemployment checks (not sure if that was really him). The "circuses" part was the mockery he made of the elites, especially the liberal elites, and more generally his flamboyant personality. No one was bored during the Trump years.

Cesar was hated by all the Roman elites and loved by all the Roman people. Where Trump differs is that he is hated by all the elites, but is only loved by half the people. This is not an accident - the elites have learned their "Cesar" lessons and have driven a wedge between the people, specifically between the blue collar and the white collar workers. If you are wondering why the culture wars are never followed by a culture peace that's because they are not supposed to end - the point is to saw discord, not to make progress. Divide and rule, today as ever.

Today's elites are corrupt as a class - specifically the neoliberal economic policy (Free Trade) enriches the rich and impoverishes the poor, both the blue collar and the white collar alike. Similarly, the patrician class of Rome used the influx of the slave labor ("Free Trade" of the day) to drive down the labor costs, impoverish the farmers, consolidate the land holdings, and permanently lock out the formerly middle class out of wealth. The wealth disparity and the loss of dignity that came with it has disconnected the people from the elites and the latter became an easy target for a populist. It is thus only a matter of time until one arises - Cesar, Trump, or even Putin. We're lucky Trump wasn't very good at it, but if the next populist turns out to be more charismatic and more competent then the republic is doomed. We might get a few decades of peace and prosperity under an enlightened "Octavian-Augustus", but that will be followed by a Caligula when we're lucky or a bunch of weaklings when we're not. The weaklings, having usurped power yet not knowing how to wield it, will drive the country into the ground, thus ending the age of American supremacy, then the age of relative prosperity, then the age of stability. Not to mention the numerous civil wars on the subject of succession that will accompany every other transition of power. I shudder to think.

So, we're doomed either way, aren't we? On one hand the republic is corrupt and no longer serves the people, and a competent dictator could disembowel the sacks of money on which the elites made their beds. The money might even end up serving the people. On the other hand it's still a republic - protected from the excesses of dictatorial rule, maintaining internal peace, assuring smooth succession of power, and providing meritocratic social mobility at least for some even if not for all. Y-Combinator being one example. So... Status quo or disruption? Woe is us!

Or is it? There is still one way to save the republic - should the blue collar and the white collar come together the people could then reign in Free Trade and redistribute the wealth back into the hands of the middle class and lift the poor out of their predicament. It's only the culture wars that keeps us apart. So close, yet to so far.

8 comments

[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 32.5 ms ] thread
truro
Your suggested analysis is a bit superficial. Many similarities to the decline of the Roman empire certainly can be aligned with the American empire; many cannot. I would suggest the mood of alignment exists, instead of specifics. Your "Trump-Julius" alignment is too contrived. Panem et circenses would be better aligned with food stamps and gaming/films/parties/recreational drug use. Our cultural norms are closely aligned with the decline of the Roman empire; but the alignment of the current form of our government is too dissimilar.

The founders of the United States were classically-educated students of Roman history and its decline; additionally, Gibbon had just been published. To that end, much of our constitution was fashioned to make it exceedingly difficult for a dictator to arise spontaneously. But even Jefferson and Madison recognized the potential for a slow, but steady, erosion of the constitutional protections to produce one--especially if originating in the general populace. They were obsessed with the "potential dictator." (read the Federalist Papers)

All republics eventually collapse into something else: oligarchy, dictatorship, or dissolve completely into fractured smaller groups. In that sense, yes: we are doomed. Our decline has already begun. But the similarities to Rome's decline are more general, more cultural, and less specific. The books by Kyle Harper and Peter Turchin also provide additional aspects of our potential collapse that align with Rome.

I doubt very much that anything can alter our decline. Your suggestion that the blue and white collar "come together" is simply wishful thinking. We've seen what populist movements produce and it is not auspicious.

Rather than lecture you, I suggest you read (thoroughly) Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (you're going to have to really pay attention: Gibbon is not for those who do not know how to read) and The Federalist Papers. Those two will give you a better understanding of the contrast between the United States and the Roman empire. You should also consult Harper and Turchin for further insights.

anon4984
> Your "Trump-Julius" alignment is too contrived.

I didn't set out to establish equivalence (clearly a fool's errand) I only aimed to suss out similarities. How did you find otherwise?

I think I specifically called out that while Cesar was successful in wielding populism to maintain power, Trump was not. The key differences being the American people are kept divided.

> I doubt very much that anything can alter our decline. Your suggestion that the blue and white collar "come together" is simply wishful thinking.

The republic lives for as long as independent people prevail. Preserving the middle class as such, and as a political force, can save the republic.

truro
Again, saving the middle class is myopic at best. There are prevailing forces beyond the reach of a middle class salvation narrative.

You are not considering economic and social issues, political and national issues, legal issues promoted by a new conservative court, and other nations actively working to undermine the republic--all of which are not controlled by a middle class, despite the romantic idea that they somehow are.

ceilingcorner
I don't think this is a very good analysis. If Trump can be compared to a Roman figure, it is most likely Sulla. He (Trump) proved that a non-politician could rise to power on a populist program, but ultimately ended up having little actual influence himself. If we are in a similar scenario to the late Republic, we still have a few decades before a Caesar is to appear.

This is still a huge stretch and I don't think modern America is very comparable to Rome.

DenisM
Wikipedia: Sulla played an important role in the long political struggle between the optimates and populares factions at Rome. He was a leader of the former, which sought to maintain the senatorial supremacy against the populist reforms advocated by the latter, headed by Marius.

So I don’t see how Trump is Sulla.

ceilingcorner
Don’t get caught up in the specific political allegiances. Trump is Sulla because he proved that a non-politician could take the presidency, but he himself was not the person to take this to its conclusion. I see him as the forerunner of a future populist candidate that will come from outside the political class. In the same way that Sulla was a predecessor of Caesarian action.

Caesar famously said that if Sulla could do it, then he could too.

Weird example but David Lynch the filmmaker said something very similar to this. I can’t find the exact quote, but he said something like “Trump has opened the door to future candidates like him, from outside the political class.”

anon4984
> This is still a huge stretch and I don't think modern America is very comparable to Rome.

How did you arrive at the idea that I am trying to establish equivalence or close comparabilty? The point of this writing is not that, but to suss out similar aspects, and see what we can learn from them. In particular I was exploring the populism aspect (as is reflected in the title), specifically the part where Free Trade impoverished the middle class and alienated people from elites, thus creating fertile ground for populism. Surely that is comparable?

ceilingcorner
The flaw in the comparison is that America is largely built on its middle class, while no such thing existed in Rome. You would need the middle class to erode into a working class for the sociopolitical system to be similar.